Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/1992 Meeting (2) e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall August 12, 1992 11 :30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Randy MacDonald, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette, Roger Rutan. The adjourned meeting of August 11, 1992, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. 1. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL. AND CITY MANAGER A. Councilor Availability Mr. MacDonald stated that he will be unavailable for the meeting on the evening of August 24. B. Ballot Measure 9 e Mr. MacDonald said that a group including School District 4J, the University of Oregon, and others will meet to discuss the impact of the passage of Ballot Measure 9, the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA) anti-gay initiative. He said it is his understanding that the City's Human Rights Commission will be asking the City to do the same. C. City Council SUbQrOUD Mr. Boles said that the City Council Officers recommend that the council's subgroup dealing with council process issues meet approximately four times during September and October, including the time set aside for the process session on September 21. The officers also recommend postponing the process session until January. Mr. Boles said concerns should be addressed to the officers. The subgroup is comprised of the five councilors continuing their terms and anyone else wishing involvement. Mr. Nicholson expressed concern with summary information distributed after the last process session and said he will distribute a memorandum outlining his concerns prior to the next session. D. Lane County Board of Commissioners MeetinQ Mr. Green said he attended the last County Board of Commissioners meeting e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 12, 1992 Page 1 11 :30 a.m. -----~-- e where commissioners expressed concern with how additional revenue from the raise in the room tax would be used. They are asking jurisdictions for assurances that the funds will be used specifically for tourism. Mr. Green said that the board deferred making a decision pending receipt of more information within 30 days from the Eugene-Springfield Convention & Visitors Bureau's marketing plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Tony Mounts, Administrative Servic- es, said that staff is working with the bureau to get an articulation of the plan to summarize for the council. In response to a question from Mayor Miller, City Manager Gleason said that the City's portion of the increased room tax is approximately $280,000. II. APPROVAL OF ALTON BAKER PARK TASK FORCE Ms. Bascom said that Lane County has no legal requirement to confer with the City of Eugene regarding Alton Baker Park. However, Commissioner Cornacchia has verbally agreed to notify the City of the County's intentions prior to implementation. Ms. Bascom said the proposal before the council is the formation of a task force which is charged with recommending to the Board of Commissioners a site within the park for a soccer field to be funded private- ly. She noted that placing the soccer field within an appropriately zoned area would require agreement on an amendment to the MetroPlan from all jurisdictions. Ms. Bascom said the park's master plan should be amended to e delete a golf course as an appropriate use of the park. She noted the plan needs to be updated, saying it was adopted in 1974, with updates in 1980 and 1985. Ms. Bascom recommended approval of the commissioners' appointees to the Alton Baker Task Force. Mr. Boles said that the Alton Baker Park Coalition is concerned that the task force has the authority to amend the Master Plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Bascom said that the goal is to have the soccer field maintained through private funding. And the effort would move forward even if the council did not approve the appointees to the task force. Ms. Bascom recommended approval as a good faith effort, saying the City has no legal recourse. Several councilors expressed concern, saying approving the appointees would endorse the process. Mr. MacDonald said that the City should endorse a proposal that would look at the issue in the context of a broader master planning process with all parties involved. He also expressed concern over maintenance of the park, saying that historically, the County has turned over developed parks requiring maintenance to the City. He noted that the citizens have qualified a measure on the ballot related to the park's use. If it passes, it will exclude soccer fields from the park. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 12, 1992 Page 2 11:30 a.m. e Mr. Boles said that the Citizen Involvement Committee found that Eugene was the only jurisdiction with a process for involving citizens, so it sent copies of its process to the other jurisdictions suggesting they might want to consider such a process. There has been no response. Mr. Boles suggested that the council approve the proposal with the following two constraints: Changing the name of the task force as suggested by Ms. Bascom in her memorandum, and with the understanding of all parties involved that this group has no charge to deal with modifications of the Master Plan. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the Lane County Commissioners' appointees to the Alton Baker Park Task Force with the two constraints cited above. Roll call vote. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Ehrman, Mr. MacDonald, and Mr. Nicholson opposed. III. WORK SESSION: EUGENE DECISIONS FINAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Miller indicated that John O'Connor will facilitate the discussion in order for the council to more easily use Tony Mounts as a resource. The council continued its discussion and review from August 11 of components for inclusion in the final Eugene Decisions strategy. Mr. Boles said that the council officers had agreed to first go through the cost-setting exercise and then look at revenue sources to meet the funding balance. Enhancements and e their attendant revenues would then be considered. He suggested that the council revisit those decisions after each step. Mr. MacDonald said that the revenue step (second) should not preclude any excess beyond what is required to fund the core from going to other appropri- ate enhancements. The council discussed Facilities Preservation. Mr. Mounts distributed a memorandum with updated figures. Mr. O'Connor gave an overview of the Facilities Preservation fund, saying that the $4.5 million is assumed in the $8 million shortfall. He said the figures represent an update from a 1990 Facility Condition Report. At that time, the report recommended 5 percent of the asset value be set aside for maintenance and repair. The percentage has been revised to 3 percent. The update also includes a replacement value of all the buildings, increasing the asset base to $86 million. Other issues dealt with in the update are deferred maintenance (recommending a five-year period to address these) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition to these three areas, Facilities staff suggests that an amount be identified for system replacement and space reconfiguration. Staff also suggests funding be set aside for maintenance and repair of non-building facilities (2 percent of value). Mr. O'Connor said these recommendations amounted to about $4.6 million. He added that about $1.1 million (for deferred maintenance) would be phased out after five years. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 12, 1992 Page 3 11:30 a.m. . e Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. O'Connor said that the current expenditure for this area is $1.5 million. Mr. Boles noted that most of the physical space is a General Fund (GF) responsibility, though many of the structures are occupied by staff paid out of other funds exclusively. He suggested moving the costs associated with these groups to the appropriate fund, lessening the burden on the GF. Mr. Mounts said staff has discussed a facility/utility chargeback that could be used for that purpose, but the concept has not been fully developed. Mr. MacDonald said he favors providing 100 percent of facility maintenance and repair through the GF to maximize the assets and protect the citizens' investment. He felt, however, that since the proposal dramatically enhances this activity, the time line can be extended. Mr. Nicholson said the council might consider selling enough assets to pay for deferred maintenance to reduce the figure to approximately $3.5 million for ongoing maintenance. Mayor Miller wondered if it would be prudent to establish a maintenance and repair budget out of the capital fund. Mr. Boles favored evaluating expendi- tures for maintenance and repairs in five years and imposing directives by charter amendment only if necessary. Mr. Rutan questioned the level of funding for maintenance and repair, saying it is formula-driven. The replacement value of the assets, he said, is an e arbitrary number. He felt that the number represented an ideal situation, something the City cannot afford. Ms. Bascom shared Mr. Rutan's concern and suggested modifying the percentage to 2 percent (approximately $860,000). Mr. Boles argued that the City has been able to avoid a crisis situation by making prudent fiscal policy decisions such as these. Mr. Nicholson felt the council did not have the proper information to make a decision, saying the experience of other jurisdictions would be very helpful. He also felt the decision should be made in tandem with how much capital investment the City should be carrying. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Robinette, that the Facility Preservation Fund be $4 million, but with the following notes: 1 ) every effort be made to ascertain the need for the current asset base in order to determine if some can be sold; and 2} that the capital cost externalization to appropriate funds be a priority. The motion failed, 4:5; Mayor Miller, Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Green, Mr. Rutan, and Mr. Nicholson opposed. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that Facility Preservation be funded at $3.7 million (2 percent of asset value), with the e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 12, 1992 Page 4 11:30 a.m. e inclusion of Mr. Boles two notations listed in the previous motion. The motion carried, 6:2; Mr. Boles and Mr. MacDonald opposed. Mr. Nicholson asked for actual capital expenditures over the last 20 years. He also asked for comparison figures from the cities of Corvallis and Salem. The council next discussed component 30C, Development Services, citizen involvement--neighborhood groups ($75,000). Mr. MacDonald defended the expenditure, saying he felt that citizens who provided input on this issue misunderstood the question. He also felt that citizen volunteers are under- utilized and the City should maximize volunteerism. Mr. MacDonald pointed out examples of how citizen groups have been an invaluable resource, noting that neighborhood groups are particularly invested in their communities. Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to place component 30C on the "Drop" list (keep it in the budget). Several councilors expressed agreement. Mr. Boles said that the Eugene Decisions process itself could not have been accomplished without neighborhood participation. Mayor Miller said he would rather ask City management to save $.5 million or more from all of the various boards and commissions and programs rather than target this particular group. Ms. Bascom was reluctant to agree, saying 69 percent of the respondents favored cuts in Development Services. She said staffing neighborhood groups e was a considerable expenditure of resources. Mr. Boles reminded the council that it has agreed to consider the restructur- ing of citizen boards and commissions in the fall. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The council discussed component 45A, Sister Cities Program ($25,000). Mr. MacDonald said that privatizing the service was not a viable option. He said the only choices were to eliminate or keep the component. Mr. MacDonald favored keeping the program, saying it was a small budget item with enormous volunteer support. The question is, he said, Does the City want to have international relations? Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to move this compo- nent to the "Drop" list. Mr. Robinette felt that the expenditure of City resources was considerably more than the figure indicated. He also felt that the program was not a vital City service. Mr. Boles said that the City is going to bear the costs with respect to hosting official delegations whether or not the item is in the budget. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 12, 1992 Page 5 11:30 a.m. e The motion failed, 3:5; Ms. Ehrman, Mr. MacDonald, and Mr. Boles voting yes. The council discussed component 33C, Business Assistance Team ($300,000). Mr. Robinette noted that it would eliminate doing annexations and other important services. Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to move this component to the Drop list. Several councilors expressed agreement. Mr. MacDonald suggested that funding be reduced to $235,000, saying he was not interested in keeping annexations and site and infrastructure assistance to other departments and agencies. He felt that if it was a non-GF project or other agency, they should reimburse the City for the services. The motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Robinette and Mr. Boles voting yes. Mr. MacDonald moved to reduce the figure in this component to $50,000 and leave it in the Include list and move $235,000 in this component to the Drop list. Mr. MacDonald said that the intent of his motion was to keep the neighborhood plans and special studies and the historic preservation program components, eliminating the other two programs. e Citing the time, Mayor Miller asked to defer discussion on this motion to this evening's meeting. Mr. MacDonald withdrew his motion. Mayor Miller asked that staff break out the figures for each of the particular programs covered by this component for this evening's meeting. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) cc113012.082 e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 12, 1992 Page 6 11:30 a.m.